The obsessive return to biological sex
From the other direction…
It is though. Being female, aka having a female body, is what makes her a woman. It’s what follows from that that is a choice, and that should be a free choice.
But that’s there anyway. We deal with it via rights, justice, arguments, regulations, organization. We don’t deal with it by saying “Look, some women have male bodies, therefore you can’t say women aren’t as strong as men!”
No. It’s not “policing women’s bodies” to say that men are not women, because the bodies in question are not women’s bodies. It’s not “policing women’s bodies” to say that people with penises don’t get to take over feminism by announcing that they are women.
And it’s tortured reasoning to say that you can’t struggle for equality and liberation if you “allow women to be solely defined by biology” when the whole point of feminism is that having female biology doesn’t make people inferior or subordinate.
It’s fair to say that biology doesn’t exhaust the meaning of “woman” but it’s absurd to say that biology is not relevant to the meaning of “woman.” Biology may not be sufficient but it damn well is necessary.
My womanhood isn’t defined by biology either. I use multiple sources. Both the lyrics from “I Enjoy Being A Girl” AND “Man! I Feel Like A Woman!” provide the rich variety of definitional support I require.
I will not be reduced.
For me it’s “Bad Moon Rising.”
Gah, I can’t stand how people conflate different senses of “defining”. For most people, I’m sure it’s unintentional, but it nonetheless leads to an equivocation fallacy.
“What it means to be a woman.”
Sense 1: What sort of person do we refer to when we utter “woman”?
Sense 2: What significance is there in being a woman? What sort of experiences do women have in virtue of being women? What meaning do women derive from their lives and from their womanhood?
I. Being female is not all it means to be a woman. (sense 2)
II. Non-females can have many things in common with women. (sense 1)
III. Women can be non-female. (sense 1)
Oh, not this nonsense again! This person is talking pure MRA garbage with this “oh, if we admit that MOST women are not as physically strong as MOST men, that means real women shouldn’t have rights” and that is bunk.
Yes, most men can bench press more weight but note that among themselves, men do NOT base their most valued rights (to vote, free speech, own property, etc.) around how much weight they can bench press. The weakest, most sickly man on earth still gets his rights. So this bizarre idea that human rights can be based on physical prowess is such a farce. Especially since it is only trotted out to deny real women our rights.
I always point out that we’re vertebrates, and isn’t it just awful the way those biologists define us by (or “reduce us to”) our spinal cords?